Cited by 150Health Systems, Economic Evaluations, Quality of LifeMeta-analysis and systematic reviewsDelphi Technique in Research

Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards 2022 (CHEERS 2022) statement: updated reporting guidance for health economic evaluations

Open access
Husereau, D, Drummond, M, Augustovski, F, Briggs, AH, Carswell, C, Caulley, L, Chaiyakunapruk, N, de Bekker‐Grob, E +8 more·2022·BJOG: An International Journal of Obstetrics & Gynaecology

Abstract

Health economic evaluations are comparative analyses of alternative courses of action in terms of their costs and consequences. The Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards (CHEERS) statement, published in 2013, was created to ensure health economic evaluations are identifiable, interpretable, and useful for decision making. It was intended as guidance to help authors report accurately which health interventions were being compared and in what context, how the evaluation was undertaken, what the findings were, and other details that may aid readers and reviewers in interpretation and use of the study. The new CHEERS 2022 statement replaces previous CHEERS reporting guidance. It reflects the need for guidance that can be more easily applied to all types of health economic evaluation, new methods and developments in the field, as well as the increased role of stakeholder involvement including patients and the public. It is also broadly applicable to any form of intervention intended to improve the health of individuals or the population, whether simple or complex, and without regard to context (such as health care, public health, education, social care, etc). This summary article presents the new CHEERS 2022 28‐item checklist and recommendations for each item. The CHEERS 2022 statement is primarily intended for researchers reporting economic evaluations for peer reviewed journals as well as the peer reviewers and editors assessing them for publication. However, we anticipate familiarity with reporting requirements will be useful for analysts when planning studies. It may also be useful for health technology assessment bodies seeking guidance on reporting, as there is an increasing emphasis on transparency in decision making.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1111/1471-0528.17012

Cites

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet

References 46 · Cited by 150

Authors
Husereau, D., Drummond, M., Augustovski, F., Briggs, A., Carswell, C., Caulley, L., Chaiyakunapruk, N., de Bekker‐Grob, E., Greenberg, D., Loder, E., Mauskopf, J., Mullins, C., Petrou, S., Pwu, R., Staniszewska, S., & CHEERS 2022 ISPOR Good Research Practices Task Force
Affiliations
  • University of Ottawa (CA)
  • University of York (GB)
  • Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicas (AR)
  • London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine London UK
  • Springer Nature (New Zealand) (NZ)
  • University of Utah (US)
  • Erasmus School of Health Policy & Management Erasmus University Rotterdam Rotterdam The Netherlands
  • Ben-Gurion University of the Negev (IL)
  • Harvard University (US)
  • RTI International (US)
  • University of Maryland, Baltimore (US)
  • University of Oxford (GB)
  • Ministry of Health and Welfare (TW)
  • University of Warwick (GB)
Corresponding author
Husereau, D
Venue
BJOG: An International Journal of Obstetrics & Gynaecology
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2022-01-10
Volume
129
Issue
3
Pages
336-344
ISSN
  • 0306-5456 (ISSN-L)
  • 1470-0328
  • 1471-0528
OpenAlex
W4206638096
Cited by
150
References
46
Citations by year
2026: 18 · 2025: 54 · 2024: 37 · 2023: 30 · 2022: 11
FWCI
26.54
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • BJOG An International Journal of Obstetrics & Gynaecology (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • EUR Research Repository (Erasmus University Rotterdam) (acceptedVersion, cc-by-nc)
  • LSHTM Research Online (London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine) (acceptedVersion)
  • EUR Research Repository (Erasmus University Rotterdam) (submittedVersion, cc-by-nc)
Funders
  • National Institute for Health Research Health Protection Research Unit
  • National Institute for Health and Care Research (NF-SI-0616-10103, NIHR202402)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Economics, Econometrics and Finance › Economics and Econometrics › Health Systems, Economic Evaluations, Quality of Life
  • Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › Statistics, Probability and Uncertainty › Meta-analysis and systematic reviews
  • Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Delphi Technique in Research
Keywords
CHEERS 2022, health economic evaluation, reporting guidelines, reporting checklist, stakeholder engagement, patient and public involvement, health technology assessment, transparency in decision-making
MeSH terms
Cost-Benefit Analysis, Economics, Medical, Humans, Research Design, Guidelines as Topic, Checklist

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review